Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sulochana Dhurve vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 August, 2022
Author: Nandita Dubey
Bench: Nandita Dubey
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE NANDITA DUBEY
ON THE 23rd OF AUGUST, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 4485 of 2019
Between:-
SMT. SULOCHANA DHURVE D/O LATE SHRI
RAM SINGH ARMO W/O SHRI RAMADHAR
DHURVE, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED R/O WARD NO. 1,
IMLI KUTI SUTHKHAR, DISTRICT-DINDORI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SUDHA GAUTAM, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR, DINDORI, DISTT-DINDORI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. VISHES KARTAVYASTH ADHIKARI (V.M.)
HIGHER EDUCATION M.P.GOVERNMENT,
SATPUDA BHAWAN, 5TH FLOOR, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT CHANDRA VIJAY
COLLEGE DISTT-DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS.PRIYANKA MISHRA, GOVT. ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 08.01.2019, whereby her application for compassionate appointment has been rejected.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHARTI GADGE Signing time: 8/26/2022 5:15:02 PM 2The petitioner's father was working as Choukidar under the Work Charged Contingency paid fund at Government Chandra Vijay College, Dindori. He died in harness on 22.07.2014. The petitioner moved an application for compassionate application in the year 2015. The committee constituted for this purpose considered the case of petitioner and vide order dated 13.07.2016 found her not entitled in view of the Clause 11.1 of the prevailing Policy of 2014 and instead granted a payment of Rs.2 Lakh on 13.07.2016 that has been accepted by the petitioner.
Subsequently, the Clause 11.1 of the Policy dated 29.09.2014 was deleted by the State Government vide Circular dated 31.08.2016 and as per the new Policy, the dependents of Work Charged and Contingency paid employees were also held entitled to compassionate appointment.
Petitioner thereafter filed another application dated 15.02.2018 before the respondent No.4/Principal, Government Chandra Vijay College, Dindori in view of the amended Policy dated 31.08.2016 stating that she is ready to returned the amount of Rs.2 Lakh paid in lieu of compassionate appointment, hence, her case be reconsidered for the claim of compassionate appointment in view of the new Policy dated 31.08.2016. This application was however, rejected by the impugned order dated 08.01.2019 stating that earlier the application of petitioner has been considered and decided as per the relevant Policy, hence the same cannot be reconsidered again.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the claim of petitioner has been wrongly rejected on the basis of the Policy of 29.09.2014. It is pointed out that the Clause 2.4 of the Policy has already been struck of by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Meenakshi Dubey Vs. Madhya Signature Not Verified Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited and others, W.A. Signed by: BHARTI GADGE Signing time: 8/26/2022 5:15:02 PM 3 No.756/2019. She has further relied on the decision rendered in the case of Sunil Vs. Public Health Engineering Department, W.P. No.327/2017 dated 23.06.2017, wherein the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the respondents to reconsider the claim of petitioner in light of subsequent Policy dated 31.08.2016.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the petitioner's case was considered at the relevant time on the basis of the Policy prevalent. It is pointed out that as per Clause 11.1 of the Policy dated 29.09.2014, the dependents of the Work Charged employees were not entitled for compassionate appointment but entitled for only an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs in lieu thereof. The petitioner's case was considered and decided by the committee on 13.07.2016 and an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs was paid to the petitioner. It is submitted that the said order has attained finality as it was not challenged any further. The subsequent amendment in the Policy dated 31.08.2016 was not made applicable with retrospective effect. Hence, the same would not be applicable in the said case. It is further pointed out that the reliance by the petitioner on the case of Meenakhi (supra) is misconceived, as the application of the petitioner was rejected as per Clause 11.1 of the relevant Policy dated 29.09.2014 and not on Clause 2.4.
In the case of Sunil (supra) the father of the petitioner therein died on 30.03.2016. He applied for compassionate appointment under the Policy dated 31.08.2016, however, his claim was rejected vide order dated 20.09.2016 in light of Clause 11.1 of the Policy dated 29.09.2014 which already stood deleted by the subsequent Policy dated 31.08.2016. Considering this aspect the Court Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHARTI GADGE Signing time: 8/26/2022 5:15:02 PM 4 allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order therein and remitted the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration in the light of subsequent Policy dated 31.08.2016.
The facts of the said is not applicable to the present case as in the present case, the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected even prior to the amendment made in the Policy after 2014 and that order has not been challenged any further by the petitioner. Filing of the subsequent application will not revive the claim of petitioner which has already been settled and rendered final.
There is no merit in the present petition, the same is accordingly dismissed.
(NANDITA DUBEY) JUDGE jk Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHARTI GADGE Signing time: 8/26/2022 5:15:02 PM